In the azure depths of the southern Caribbean, far from the prying eyes of the public, a fundamental change occurred in the United States’ approach regarding drug smugglers at sea.

On September 2nd, the US military struck its first lethal air strike against a boat suspected of smuggling drugs. A significant new directive was involved: Kill smugglers at sea instead of arresting them. This is not how the rules worked in the past, and a storm of controversy has been whipped up about this in Washington D.C. currently.

The Target

Intelligence reports linked the boat to the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang recently designated by the US government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. According to every previous government, it was the US Coast Guard that would deal with a boat like this. They would fire a warning shot across the bow before boarding. They would arrest the smugglers, seize the evidence, and the accused would face trial in a court of law.

But with "Operation Southern Spear," the rules were rewritten. According to the government, led by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, drug smuggling is equivalent to an armed invasion, which justifies a military response rather than a law enforcement one.

The First Strike

The operation began with a precision attack. A guided missile struck the vessel in its center to break the hull and detonate the boat's fuel stores. That explosion smashed the fiberglass structure to smithereens, and nine of the eleven men on board were killed instantly.

The destroyed boat capsized. Debris and bales of cocaine were scattered on the water. Immediately after that, surveillance drones flew over the scene transmitting live video back to command centers in Florida and the Pentagon. The footage revealed an unexpected problem: two survivors.

Shirtless and unarmed, the two men managed to climb onto a floating section of the keel. They were adrift in remote international waters, their vessel destroyed and their comrades dead. They were defenseless and helpless.

The Second Strike

Soldiers who are hors de combat—those removed from the fight due to injury or shipwreck—have protection under the Geneva Conventions. Under the terms of the Conventions, there is a duty to rescue them if possible, and it is not permitted to kill them.

Despite this, the operation commander, Navy Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley, ordered a second strike to hit the debris where the two were sheltering.

It was reported that drone video showed the two survivors waving their hands beforehand. The interpretation of this signaling would be the basis for a heated political battle later. According to Democratic lawmakers and human rights observers who saw the video, it was clear the men were in distress, making signs of surrender or rescue. They had no radio, no weapons, and no means of movement.

For the government and its defenders, however, the hand waving was interpreted differently. Senator Tom Cotton and military officials claimed the men were signaling to cartel boats in the area, and therefore they were still fighting and trying to salvage the illicit cargo. It was reported that Admiral Bradley assessed that the debris, which possibly still contained cocaine, was a valid military target for destruction.

In any event, on the admiral's orders, a second series of munitions struck the debris. The two survivors were killed instantly.

Legal and Ethical Controversy

"The term we have for a premeditated act like that outside of armed conflict is murder," said Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, in an interview after the incident. "It is patently illegal to kill a person who has suffered a shipwreck."

The government's defense relied on the targets. By designating the crew as "narco-terrorists," the Pentagon claimed that those smugglers were unlawful enemy combatants who posed a continuous threat to US national security. Secretary of Defense Hegseth defended the decision strongly, saying: "If you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you."

But for over a hundred years, since the US made its first opium seizure at sea in 1886, dealing with drugs smuggled at sea was a policing act, not a military one. People were innocent until proven guilty; evidence was gathered; trials were held. But in this case, Hellfire missile attacks replaced due process of law.

The Consequences

In the months that followed this incident, US forces carried out over 20 other attacks like this, killing more than 80 people. Among them were Colombians, Venezuelans, and citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Although the US claimed they were all terrorists, families of the dead said they were poor fishermen forced to engage in smuggling—temporary workers who had no knowledge of the wider geopolitical war.

A major problem was also the lack of transparency. The names of the dead were not released initially. No bodies were recovered for post-mortem examination. The "evidence" went to the bottom of the Caribbean Sea.

In Washington, investigations began, demanding to find out if an illegal order like "kill them all" had been issued. Although Admiral Bradley testified that he received no such explicit order from Pete Hegseth, at the same time, he himself ordered the second strike. That indicates the kind of culture involved in Operation Southern Spear.

A New Era of Warfare?

What happened on September 2, 2025, serves as a grim milestone in American foreign policy. That is the day the US ignored the Geneva Conventions by killing defenseless survivors.

That horrific behavior also raises uncomfortable questions: Can a government unilaterally declare that criminals are soldiers? And if so, do they then have the right to kill them without due process, especially those who are hors de combat? What is the Geneva Convention worth if it is ignored?

Congressional hearings and lawsuits will take place to deal with this horrific incident and to answer those questions. Although it is presumably clear to us all what the right answers are, will the US government share that view—a government under the control of President Trump, who has absolutely no respect for national or international rules?

A group of people gathered together beside a lake on a very cold day in October in northern Wisconsin. There was a carpet of multicoloured leaves on the ground. Both nuns and Native Americans from the Lac du Flambeau Band were present.

During the ceremony, the nuns gave the land title to the delegation of Indigenous people. What was involved was two acres of land, which included a cluster of cabins, and a house called the Marywood Franciscan Spirituality Centre. The sale price: $30,000, exactly the amount the order of nuns paid for it 60 years ago. Its valuation today? Around $2.6 million.

In contrast to the land acknowledgement that is common at meetings on stolen land and which is nothing more than a symbolic confession, this was the real thing: the first known case of a Catholic institution in the United States voluntarily returning land to a tribe as an act of reparation.

"We wanted to do more than just say we were sorry."

Sister Eileen McKenzie, president of the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration (FSPA), told reporters that the order had spent two years researching the history of the land. They learned that the property was on the traditional territory of the Lac du Flambeau Band, from whom land was stolen through broken treaties.

"We wanted to do more than just say we were sorry," she said. "We wanted to change the story, even in a small way."

The nuns made the decision after painful reflection. FSPA helped run a Catholic boarding school that separated Indigenous children from their families and their culture. That is a shameful legacy not only for FSPA but for Catholics and Protestants throughout North America, as unmarked graves are still being found in every corner of the continent.

"It felt right to give something back," McKenzie said. "This land wasn't ours to begin with anyway."

An emotional homecoming with fond memories

For the Lac du Flambeau Band, there was deep emotion associated with the moment. Tribal President John Johnson Sr. called the act "a step toward restoring balance."

He spoke about elders who remember fishing on that same lake, and about the old paths that used to go through the forests. "When you return to land that knows your name, you feel something inside settling," he said. "That's not a question of ownership. There's a deep connection between our tribe and this place."

The tribe intends to keep the property as a place for healing and cultural renewal — a place where people can gather, stories can be told, and ceremonies can be held on land that is once again under their care.

"It's like a circle closing," Johnson said. "The land remembers us, and now we can remember it."

The quiet revolution called 'Land Back'

Throughout the United States, a growing movement called 'Land Back' is challenging the concept of land ownership. It's considered a critically important effort, and tribes and allies are negotiating, fundraising, and sometimes going to court to reclaim ancestral lands.

What's most striking about this story is the way it happened. It wasn't a government order or a court settlement — but a group of elderly nuns who decided among themselves to do the right thing.

"This changes the moral temperature," said historian and Indigenous rights advocate Nick Estes, who has written extensively on the Land Back movement. "When you see people of faith — people whose institutions benefited from our dispossession — voluntarily giving land back, it opens hearts and possibilities."

More important than just the land

Land is just earth and trees. But for Indigenous Nations, there's memory, language, law, and identity in it. Their culture and the land are interwoven. When they get even a small piece back like this, it makes a huge difference to them, because it begins the reversal of the loss.

Sociologist Dr. Danielle SeeWalker, who studies Indigenous reconciliation efforts, put it simply: "Each acre that's returned is like a heartbeat restarting. You can't measure that in dollars."

For the nuns of FSPA, returning their land to the tribe is an important step. "Francis of Assisi taught us to repair what is broken," Sister McKenzie said. "In this era, perhaps this is what is broken and needs repairing."

A sign, not an ending

This is unlikely to be the end of the story. It's reported that other Catholic communities are doing deep reflection on their own role regarding boarding schools and the land associated with them.

Questions have been put to both the Jesuits and the Benedictines about property that was connected to missions or schools for Indigenous children.

Legal experts believe that voluntary acts like this could influence public policy — showing that reparative transfers like this can be done without ten years in the courts. "An act of reparation like this can be viewed as an act of relationship instead of a political fight," said one law professor.

But the nuns themselves insist they're not seeking praise. "We're not heroes," McKenzie said. "We listened, that's all."

Conclusion

When the ceremony ended, the group formed a small circle, passing around a wooden bowl full of water from the lake. An elder of the tribe blessed the site in his native language - Ojibwe - and the nuns sang a Franciscan hymn. The wind carried their voices over the trees and up into the sky, spreading the hopeful message across the world, without limit, without restraint.

In a country full of empty promises and where money is a false God, an act like this is rare. But by setting down a single example, it's likely that the small group on the edge of the lake has begun inspiring a new movement that will be far greater than they know.

As you reflect on this, think about how we ourselves can do acts like this that will give support to minority and disadvantaged groups in our own country - groups like legal immigrants and the Travelling community.

And we can always support efforts that will promote the Irish language and the preservation of our culture. Look at what President Catherine Connolly is doing in Áras an Uachtaráin, for example, regarding the use of the language.

Finally, in the famous words of Margaret Mead: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.